Search This Blog

"The blog is responsible for providing lively debates on politics, presidential campaigns, health care reform and environment protection initiatives in the United States. It chronicles discussion points on the subject of presidential campaigns, health care reform and environmental pollution, including changing dynamics of government institutional policies. It attempts to breath a new life of reasoning on how these issues are dealt with in public policy formation."

RETHINKING HILLARY CLINTON’S FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH FIVE MONTHS TO THE ELECTION DAY

The touchstone of American
Foreign Policy since the election of the first African American President may
be getting a facelift, considering what the presumptive Democratic Nominee for
2016 White House oval Office, Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
said yesterday, June 2, 2016, in Sand Diego, California. The primary threat to
America’s security was confronted in the speech with some direct effort to
lambast the de-facto Republican Nominee, Donald Trump, as not prepared to hold
the mantle of leadership in the White House come January, 2017. For Ms. Clinton
and about 46 percent of college educated Whites in last week’s Washington
Post/ABC poll, electing Businessman Donald Trump -as the President of the
United States - will be a “historical mistake”. Ms. Clinton’s Foreign Policy
speech received accolades among foreign policy experts and the press for charting
a new focus or cause for American foreign policy, including asking America’s
friends and allies to contribute, even if very marginally, expenses needed to
provide the level of defense, stability and security in many parts of the
world; a focus that some say is probably overdue and worthy of consideration
with the galloping cost of maintaining regional and international security
across the globe.

The new goal of this policy may
be termed, participatory foreign policy financial commitment bill or, a
participatory investment in planning and executing long term strategy for
international security. Warnings that this proposal was long overdue, as once
alerted by 2016 de-facto Republican Nominee, Donald Trump, while still competing
fiercely against a slate of Republican aspirants for his party’s nomination.
What the Former US Secretary of State accomplished on probably the most
consequential foreign policy speech after a pseudo determination of who is the
Democratic Party flag bearer, is that, the proponent espouses some parameters regarding
funding of regional stability for friends and allies, considering the rising
costs of ensuring continued international security and stability in the face of
the chameleonic insurgent groups activities, including ISIS, and probably other
revolutionary groups, with axe to grind with Western Democracies. International
and National security threats from terrorism are now real and the penchant and
longevity of fighting this international nemesis are becoming more unpredictable
with the rise of international terrorists and terrorism threats, even in the
heart of Western Europe. The past paradigm of fighting international terrorism
and guaranteeing regional stability in many areas of the globe, are probably
now archaic for a new century of upheavals. Though the proposal of
participatory investment, through shared cost coverage, in providing security
across the world may be unsettling and troubling for some of our friends and
allies with underperforming economies and high national debts, it is still a
proposal worth mulling over, even if only for a future consideration and
deliberations between partners in the global fight against terrorists.

Just as Hillary Clinton was
looking ahead on the new dimension for a proactive foreign policy, she was
being bemoaned with the usual, misogynist comments from Donald Trump: "bad
performance by Crooked Hillary Clinton" – a firestorm reaction from the de-facto
Republican nominee that is unworthy of additional comments or reaction from
Hillary Clinton. Foreign policy establishment policy analysts still gave kudos
to Ms. Clinton’s including credits for: 1)believing
in strong alliances, clarity in dealing with rivals, and rock-solid commitment
to the values that have always made America great; 2) advancing the truth that
America does not have to cower behind a wall as a strategy to keep away
undocumented immigrants; because she enjoys friendly neighborliness with Canada
and Mexico; and any unfathomable building of a wall to separate North from
South America is essentially counterproductive; 3) denouncing proposal from
Donald Trump, essentially encouraging Japan and Southern Korea to own and build
nuclear weapons, for security purpose, a proposal she say is implausible; 4) denouncement
of Trump’s demonizing of Muslims; apart from being unconstitutional, it is an
advancement that plays right into ISIS narrative of what America and the West
is all about; and, 5) characterizing Republican flag bearer as thin skinned and
quick tempered, who enjoys lashing out at smallest criticism.

By highlighting that Mr. Trump
must not be in a position to make life and death decision on behalf of the
United States, Ms. Clinton decried a lone ranger attitude from the US and any excuse
to entertain a candidate with loose talking approach to nearly all problems as President
of the United States. Further, Ms. Clinton believes a presidential candidate
with a penchant for demonizing all Muslims and minority groups, scanty mastery
of information on Iran and Nuclear program, must not be allowed to have the
code to nuclear weapon launching. Just as Ms. Clinton was worried about the
risk involved in having Donald Trump who had engaged himself in using his
Twitter account for loose talks, being in the position where he can commit
America’s arsenals, to war, she probably spoke to the implications of the new
endorsement of the US House Speaker Paul Ryan for Donald Trump’s ambition for
US Presidency.

If Ms. Clinton was building up
support for her candidacy for the White House oval office by proposing a new cause
or focus for America’s foreign policy before a wider audience of voters beyond
the Democratic Party, maybe she accomplished that and some more yesterday, and
probably got some converts from the other aisle of American Political Party. By
proposing foreign policies that lead America to a new reality of costs of
security and the contriteness of isolating America from the rest of the world, through
Mr. Trump’s America First doctrinaire, Ms. Clinton probably overtook her arch
rival in the Republican Party by surprise, since he had already appeared as the
hawkish candidate who conveniently, for whatever reason, advanced ideas in
support of nuclear proliferation without an iota of consideration for the regional
and or international implications.

Further, if Ms. Clinton was
attempting to lead the nation to a new awareness of the veracity of the Iran
nuclear deal, essence of building world alliance to prevent nuclear
proliferation, and the importance of reminding us that we are a nation of
immigrants, who cannot keep some people away because of their religion or color
of skin, she probably did that effectively by creating some justification of
anxiety towards Donald Trump’s candidacy for the US Presidency. In addition, if
the presumptive Democratic Nominee for 2016 White House race was offering a
definitive foreign policy contrary to the haphazard pronouncements and or
declarations from Mr. Trump, she probably attained the upper hand in the debate
on foreign policy against a neophyte. Yes, Ms. Clinton benefited from being the
former US Secretary of State, a job that opened her to many successes and
pitfalls of rational and irrational foreign policies.

Unfortunately, rather than
offering alternative proposals countering or contrasting Ms. Clinton’s foreign
policy speech, Mr. Trump automatically took exception to all Ms. Clinton’s
foreign policy proposals; with the usual abusive denigration; one shortcoming
that is probably backing establishment Republicans to the wall, making
them wonder, why their party's leadership is now coalescing behind a candidate, whose
choice words at opponents, unusually create fears and anxieties among Americans. Why on earth is
the Republican Party subscribing to xenophobic pronouncements and or dishevel
comments that may lead to irreversible damage to America’s Foreign policy if
Mr. Trump becomes the next President of the United States? As if to say America’s
national interest is at stake for considering Mr. Trump for the White House
oval office, Ms. Clinton’s Foreign policy speech alluded to other indisputable arguments:
1) “Imagine Donald Trump sitting in the situation room, making life-or-death
decision, could you trust his judgement, [based on his temperament and past
activities on Twitter]” 2) “I have some experience with the tough calls and the
hard work of statecraft. I wrestled with the Chinese over a climate deal in
Copenhagen, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the
reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia, twisted arms to bring the world
together in global sanctions against Iran, and stood up for the rights of
women, religious minorities, and LGBT people around the world;” both arguments that
undermine Mr. Trump’s candidacy over Ms. Clinton’s.

For all intents and purpose,
everyone is probably aware that the global community is gradually shrinking.
Thus, arguing for a candidate that is about isolationism in running the White
House oval Office, appears counterproductive for futuristic vision, even for
some progressive Republicans. The constant challenge of having to advance argument
of American First for a candidate seeking the White House oval office is not
only counterproductive, it belies the obvious in a world of rapid globalization.
The demise of isolationism since the fall of Soviet Union and the advancement of
information technology, especially the internet, make the influence of America
rather daunting if she chooses to have a leader that opts for the archaic
national policy of America first. If made in China products are so offensive to
Mr. Trump, maybe he should begin with his corporations, asking them to stop patronizing
“Made in China’ suits for Trump’s Classic suits and array of retail products.
Winning the competitive struggle and global influence impose on us
responsibilities of supporting free and competitive markets; a situation that
bemoans an archaic doctrinaire as advanced by Mr. Trump. There is therefore
validity and merits in Ms. Clinton’s foreign policy argument that globalization
has not stolen anything from anyone; and America is hardly carrying any heavier
load than any other nation in current day trading dispensation.

Some political observers wonder
why Ms. Clinton scheduled a Foreign Policy speech to coincide with the California
primary, asking if it has anything to do with her lagging in California polls against
Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary. Was Ms. Clinton
creating an impression of inevitability in the nomination process and at a juncture
where the mounted fight for votes’ dominance in California is close to being against
Ms. Clinton as a possible victor at that State's Primary coming Tuesday. As maintained
by one Bernie Sanders staffer, her veracity to close the deal on Tuesday is
still a tossup. Her foreign policy speech therefore is more adept to an
expectation that she is the inevitable nominee based on the Super delegates
counts. On the Republican party side, maybe what Donald Trump may be asking,
since he does not have a rebuttal for Ms. Clinton’s foreign policy speech is
this: “If her foreign policy speech is so brilliant as claimed by some
political observers, why hasn’t she closed the deal before next Tuesday primaries
in California and New Jersey? It takes time to adjust to a reality that Ms.
Clinton probably targeted the major weakness of Mr. Trump’s candidacy for the
White House oval office; just the way, her foreign policy speech is a
demonstration of her being presidential than any of her opponents, either
within her party and outside her party.

Further, by offering early
foreign policy speech that quickly and doubly chastises the de facto Republican Party nominee
as ill-informed; or, completely ignorant of international politics and foreign
policies, Clinton appears to be putting Mr. Trump in the handicap status towards the race to the White House. One main digression from the focus of Ms. Clinton’s foreign
policy argument is her walk away from two major successes she championed as US Secretary
of State while in Obama's Administration: 1) Trans-Atlantic Partnership Agreement and 2) Pivoting
America’s foreign policy towards Asia and Far East Countries, especially in the
arena of trade, commerce and regional stability. Many Americans are wondering
why Ms. Clinton is walking away from these conceptual successes in foreign
policy parlance in her pursuit of the 2016 White House. Is she doing this as a
self-service objective; or is she doing this for other ulterior motives because
such policies may not receive the type of blessing they have had under President
Obama’s? With respect to future commerce, regional stability and
international relations with countries in Asia and Far East, as conceived under
the proposed foreign policy dispensation under a “President Hillary Clinton”, will Americans
feel safer under the new dispensation and will existing bilateral relations with
countries of that region affect America’s ability to fight global terrorism?
The usual mystic associated with proactive foreign policy agenda or vision of a reflective future,
hardly rely mostly on pulling the carpets under existing policies, especially
the most recent ones that may be yielding positive results as envisaged when
the nation launched into them?

In my view, visionary and
proactive foreign policies, attempt to make corrections to past failures of initial
efforts. How about a policy that fixes the mess that the incursion into Iraq,
Afghanistan and Libya as resulted? Some envisioned corrective efforts at fixing
past failures in foreign policies, can make much difference than launching into
new ones without a consideration of a 20/20 vision reflective considerations of initial efforts. How about, contemplating foreign policies that address the
current bi-polar deficiency of the Israeli-Palestinian long standing distrust of
each other and moving forward from the gridlock to a two state solution as
expected at first bat? How about a policy of wait and see what becomes of the Egyptian uprising? Are these not worthy of a second take after the challenges associated with coming upstream?

The heretofore containment of
communism that has lost much allure in current day foreign policy parlance is
no longer visionary; however, finding solutions addressing the perceived failures
of the Arab Spring maybe one visionary effort to correct for not having the
so-called democratic society in those Arab States that engaged in upheavals that led to the testability of the veracity of democratic principles in the
Arab world. The traditional foreign policy that have remained consistent over
the years, whether we have a Republican or Democrat in the White House oval
office, which appears to have prevented a re-evaluation of lopsided trade
issues with China; and or, the vested interest of Saudi Arabia in ownership of
America’s foreign debt, plus the inconvenient issues appearing to be linked together by those
suspicious of level of transparency associated with the ill-fated September 11 2001
terrorist attacks investigative report; most especially, the misgivings of some conspiracy theorists,
that not all information regarding that ill-fated event has been released to
the public? It is essential that these issues are put to rest for the sake of
national security and transparency; and the unusual upheaval from conspiracy
theorists regarding what was kept out of the released report and what was not; including who
actually sponsored what, who knew what beforehand and how much did anyone
within the United State government know about the attack? The need to be
transparent is paramount, if we are to put to rest allegations of cover-up for
the sake of commerce or partnering in the trade and exchange of oil as
postulated by conspiracy theorists. There are no greater and better ways to
preserve the sanctity of the truth, no matter whose lion is groined.

Popular posts from this blog

WHITE HOUSE
President Barack Obama's farewell address
It's good to be home. My fellow Americans, Michelle and I have been so touched by all the well-wishes we've received over the past few weeks. But tonight it's my turn to say thanks. Whether we've seen eye-to-eye or rarely agreed at all, my conversations with you, the American people - in living rooms and schools; at farms and on factory floors; at diners and on distant outposts - are what have kept me honest, kept me inspired, and kept me going. Every day, I learned from you. You made me a better President, and you made me a better man.
I first came to Chicago when I was in my early twenties, still trying to figure out who I was; still searching for a purpose to my life. It was in neighborhoods not far from here where I began working with church groups in the shadows of closed steel mills. It was on these streets where I witnessed the power of faith, and the quiet dignity of working people in the face of struggl…

Keywords
or Terms: Electoral College; 2016 Election Results; White House; Melting Pot;
Declaration of Independence; Right of the Disenfranchised; Muslims; Mexican; Wall Building; Renegotiating NAFTA; Empowerment of Disparate Groups; Consent of the
Governed; Foundation Principle of Organized Powers; Anti-tyranny, Anti-repeated
injuries and usurpation, Anti-harassment, Anti-cruelty, Anti-taxation without
representation, Anti-absolute governance;
Civil Rights; Beauty of America’s Democracy; Ronald Reagan; Howard DeanEvery
four years American citizens and voters flood the voting booths to fulfill the constitutional
requirement to elect a president who will govern them. The choice of who ends
up being the President of the United States of America in a spate of aspirants is
reposed in an electoral college. In this respect, the Electoral College serves
not only as a proxy of the American voters, but the voice of the people, following
a detailed election proceeding that yields the ultimate o…

Keywords
or Terms: CBS 60 Minutes program; Aspirant Donald Trump; Tax Plan; Immigration
plan; Job Creation Plan;Corporate
taxes; Simple tax code; Reagan-Era trickle down economy; Undocumented
Immigrant; Huge Southern Border Walls; China, North Korea; NAFTA; Power of the
Presidency; Republican fiscal Policies; Checks and Balances; United Nations; Arab
Spring; Latin America; Checks and Balances; and, the Separation of PowersOn Sunday, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Donald
Trump, the front-runner for Republican Party nomination in the 2016
Presidential Contest. CBS 60 Minute’s program gave Aspirant Donald Trump a
platform to tell the nation about his tax plan; immigration plan; and, jobs' creation plan. In the fifteen minute broadcast, part of an extended interview, shown on Sunday, September 27, 2015, you came out with either an absurd or unrealistic expectation
of the powers of the Office of US Presidency, the place of checks and balances of the three arms of government, a…

Serving as a Civil Service Commissioner (2012 - Date) for the City of Federal Way, Washington; I graduated with a doctorate from Oklahoma State University in 1984; Taught college and completed environmental economics research for over 20 years (Washington State University, Pullman: 1984 -1985; University of Ilorin, Nigeria :1986 - 1994; University of Innsbruck, Austria: 1994 - 1995; Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon, USA : 2000 - 2004); Served as Independent Salary Commissioner (2003 - 2012) and Planning Commissioner (1996-2000) for the City of Federal Way, Washington; and Board member of Bethel Christian Center (2001 to 2004); Registered as a Professional Librarian in the States of Georgia and Washington; Appointed as Notary Public in the State of Washington.